The Surrogacy & Egg Donation Center at Conceptual Options, LLC announces their Third Party Assurance Program

Submitted by Erickson Law on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 4:07pm

San Diego & Los Angeles, CA June 02, 2009 – The Surrogacy & Egg Donation Center at Conceptual Options, LLC announces their Third Party Assurance Program. “We understand that the need for a child is not a want or a need, it is a biological imperative!” states Theresa M. Erickson, Attorney, CEO and founder of Conceptual Options. “In these uncertain times, we need some assurance! Our Surrogacy & Egg Donation Center has expanded our current Third Party Assurance Program to guarantee a positive outcome.” states Surrogacy Lawyer Erickson. “With the recent increase of negative stories surrounding surrogacy and egg donation, one might be led to believe that there is a backlash brewing against family planning. That is exactly why it is important for those of us involved in this specialized field to continue finding new ways to guarantee our clients success!” says Attorney Erickson.

The Third Party Assurance Program allows Intended Parents the ability to minimize their risk associated with the high cost of Third Party Assisted Reproduction, while also taking advantages of our full time professional staff. “One of the greatest benefits to our Third Party Assurance Program is the ability to tailor the program to your specific needs” states Tracy Armato the Program Director for Conceptual Options. “There are four separate levels of assurance including the platinum level which gives you the assurance there will be no further center fees throughout your journey” Armato says.

Selecting a center to help guide you through the complicated process of Surrogacy & Egg Donation is an integral part of the process. Selecting a center that is an industry leader is an imperative. “Being an attorney owned center affords our clients with a sense of security and anonymity that is unmatched. We understand that surrogacy & egg donation is a private matter and we take your confidentiality to the next level.” says Surrogacy Lawyer Erickson.

About Conceptual Options, LLC & Surrogacy Lawyer Erickson

Conceptual Options was founded by Theresa M. Erickson, Esq. in 1999 and has been integral in all aspects of the fertility community and in helping build families. All families are Traditional, some just take un-traditional paths by using surrogacy, egg donation and sperm donation.
www.surrogacy-eggdonation.com

Subscribe to my blog at: http://www.surrogacyeggdonorblog.com/subscribe.html

Erickson Law's blog
Login or register to post comments
779 reads

Comments

the need for a child is … a biological imperative!

Submitted by anonymous on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 5:07am.

Only the need for your own biological child can be a biological imperative. The need for someone else's child, whether by adoption, surrogacy or gamete donation, can only be a socio-psychological need, informed by ones social mores and psycho-history. As such, the need for someone else's child cannot be an imperative of any kind, and in fact sounds on the face of it to be more like greed and/or larceny. People who embark on such courses of action must prima facie be masters of self-deception in order to go through with it. Which is why they won't understand this message.

Ian Robinson

The need for a child....

Submitted by Erickson Law on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 2:35pm.

Ian, I absolutely respect your opinion, and I am certain others agree with you in many ways. However, in our society, who is the one to decide who can have a child and who cannot? Who should make those judgments and why?

Theresa M. Erickson, Esquire
www.EricksonLaw.net

The need for a child …

Submitted by anonymous on Sat, 06/13/2009 - 1:47am.

Theresa Erikson asks "who is the one to decide who can have a child and who cannot?" This is not like asking "who can own a firearm?" or "who can hold a licence to drive a car?" The object of the Theresa's question is a person, not something to be "had" or "not had". Once the debate has moved on to the question of "who can have [another person]?", in this case a child, it has gone too far. No-one has the right to another person so no-one has the right to a child. And in particular, no-one has the right to someone else's child. What one does in the case of one's childlessness, whether this is due to physiological limitations or choice of sexual orientation, is up to each person's conscience and I don't presume to judge for them. All I ask is that they recognise that they are making hugely significant choices for another person who has no say in the matter and this is a very weighty moral burden.

The focus should not be on the person who may or may not "have" a child, but on the potential child.

Ian Robinson

Aren’t we all making

Submitted by anonymous on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 5:37pm.

Aren’t we all making choices for people who have no say? No one asks to be born. This statement applies to everyone, not just children born through surrogacy or put up for adoption.

Many children are brought into this world by mistake. At least surrogacy and adoption is planned and not decided in the matter of a few minutes of irresponsible love making.